Idealists, You Are!

Wow, thank you to all who participated in the latest WWCP poll. With 65 votes, it topped the previous high of 49 votes, which were cast in this site's very first poll. Clearly, WWCP is going in the right direction, popularity-wise.

I mistakenly thought I had chosen a very polarizing, divisive question in this poll: "In a President, what type of conservatism is most important to you?"

I figured that we'd either see a split between economic, foreign policy, and social conservatives, or see a general gravitation to social conservatism, since many of my blog readers may feel most strongly about that area. Instead, by a wide margin, you chose the utopian idea of a totally conservative President.

67% (44 votes) of you said that "A President has to have ALL for me to support him." That's a higher percentage than the 65% which said Hillary Clinton would make the worst President.

Next in line was "Defense Conservatism (Foreign Policy/Immigration)" at a distant second place. It brought in 12% (8 votes) of the votes.

After that, a pack of options runs together, each choice carrying only a few votes. 6% (4 votes) voted for "Social Conservatism," and another 6% voted for "Theological Conservatism." 3% (2 votes) cast their ballot with "Economic Conservatism (free markets)", while another 3% (2 votes) wasn't conservative ("I'm NOT a conservative, so none!")

Rounding out the poll was "Fiscal Conservatism" with one lonely percentile (1 vote).

A few notes:

1.) I ambiguously worded the most popular answer choice: "A President has to have ALL for me to support him." "Support" is a relative term. Wholehearted support, or support period?

2.) A lot of types of conservatism can be defined relatively, as well. There are degrees of conservatism.

3.) I can see that I can't give you all a cop-out if I want to see your feelings when forced to make a decision.

Please vote in the new poll.

WWCP Dis-endorses John McCain (for Primary Season)

Everytime I decide to dis-endorse a candidate, it pains me greatly. It bothers me not only because I may like the candidate personally, but also because I realize the potential implications of being against a candidate when others are even worse. Both of those factors are sources of discomfort in this decision. However, I cannot sit idly by and watch John continue to surge in the polls.

On the first five issues I have examined--sanctity of marriage, sanctity of marriage, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Obscenity/Pornography, and Personal Commitment/Morality (soon to be posted)--John McCain has ranked 6.4 collectively, behind Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney (also dis-endorsed), and Fred Thompson, respectively. That poor of a ranking doesn't even reflect his position on immigration and the fiasco of McCain-Feingold.

By this dis-endorsement, I am not claiming that McCain is not a true Christian, although one is made to wonder; rather, I am simply saying that he does not appear to be one of the better options as a true Christian President.

If he turns out to be the Republican nominee, I may be able to support him, unlike Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney. However, for the foreseeable future of the primary season, I am dis-endorsing John McCain.

Screeching to a Halt in the Motor City State...

Republican Michigan Primary Results:

Mitt Romney: 39%
John McCain: 30%
Mike Huckabee: 16%
Ron Paul: 6%
Fred Thompson: 4%
Rudy Giulani: 3%
Duncan Hunter: <1%


~Needless to say, the results in Michigan were not what Hucka-supporters were hoping for. However, his performance is nothing to scoff at, when you consider that he received more votes than Paul, Thompson, Giuliani, and Hunter combined. Facing two candidates with deep roots in Michigan and one with deep pockets, Huckabee managed to pull off a solid third-place finish.

~Out of nowhere, South Carolina has become the primary for Joe Namath moments. Reacting to both of their significant defeats, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are promising/vowing/predicting/guaranteeing their own victories on Saturday. Both of them desperately need a triumph in the Palmetto State to propel them into Florida and Super Tuesday.

~Ron Paul continues to embarrass, for lack of a better word, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giulani. Paul beat Giulani in Iowa and trailed Thompson by only three points. He beat Thompson in New Hampshire, and trailed Giulani by only one point. He won't defeat Thompson in South Carolina, but he has a chance at taking down Giulani there.
I'm not going to accept the idea that Paul's only competing with Giulani because Giulani isn't spending time in the early primary states. Voters aren't mindless. They don't just vote because of the quantity of time that they've seen a candidate; in fact, people tire of candidates sometimes. They care more about quality--message--than quantity. And the simple fact is that Giulani's message on a littany of issues doesn't sit well with most conservatives.
Admittedly, Paul's foreign policy may be misguided, but his positions on social issues and limited government are much closer to conservative norms than Rudy's.

~Why is Duncan Hunter still in the race? Consider this: if the Republican party ends up with a brokered convention, they can pick anybody. Hunter is perhaps the most complete, consistent conservative in the race. Could they select him? Certainly, electability/name recognition could be a problem, but you never know.

~A surprising number of people voted "Uncommitted" on the Republican side. Understandably, many Democrats voted "Uncommitted" since Hillary Clinton was the only big-name candidate on the ballot, due to Obama and Edwards pulling their names off the ballot after a delegate conflict. In this case, a vote "Uncommitted" was like a vote for Obama or Edwards.
But it makes no sense for Republicans to vote "Uncommitted," unless all those voters were Alan Keyes supporters. Keyes was apparently not on the ballot.

Pre-Ignition in Mich'gan

The proverbial key is soon to turn in the Motor City, and here's my pre-race analysis:

~ The polls aren't looking that good for Mike Huckabee in Michigan. It appears that McCain is receiving a momentous boost in support resulting from New Hampshire, and that, coupled with Mitt Romney's Michigan roots and stacks of money, looks like it could culminate in a disappointing third-place showing for Huckabee.

~It's hard to say now who Huckabee supporters should be rooting to win the Wolverine State, besides Huckabee himself, of course. Practically speaking, a loss for Romney could hammer the final nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. However, the resultant McCain victory would likely launch McCain into a big win in South Carolina and, thereafter, another one in Florida. Although McCain isn't officially "not supported" on this site, I would not want to see him win the nomination (Read my "Ranking Their Positions" series on abortion, the sanctity of marriage, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; also, research his other positions)

~That being said, we saw in New Hampshire, on the Democratic side, that polls can't be trusted. Although there are numerous explanations for how the polls could have predicted so wrongly, one possibility is that the polls somehow reflected a false "momentum" that Obama supposedly carried out of Iowa. If that is true, and the polls have overblown McCain's momentum out of New Hampshire, Huckabee could still have a shot.

~By some quirk of the election process, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate on the Democratic Michigan ballot, and, in Michigan, Democrats, as well as independents, can choose to vote in the Republican primary. It's difficult to determine how that will affect the race. Huckabee's "populist" message may appeal to Democrats, and his social conservatism may appeal to some Michigan Catholics who may vote Democratically based upon their economic philosophies (I don't know with certainty that any of those exist, but I suppose that they do.). On the other hand, social moderates and liberals who are for a strong defense may lean towards Rudy Giulani or John McCain. In addition, with no competition from Barack Obama, John McCain has a clear shot at most of Michigan's independents.
So, the summation of that paragraph is that we will just have to wait and see.

~As I pointed out in a previous post, Fred Thompson has stated that he is "making his stand" in South Carolina. After a debate performance that was perceived by some (not me) as brilliant, Thompson looks like he is in decent shape. However, Michigan polls suggest that he will bring up the rear of all the candidates still invited to debates (Giulani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney, Thompson). Whereas McCain, Romney, or Huckabee could get a monumental kick in the pants coming into South Carolina after Michigan, Thompson won't.

~ Rudy Giulani will once again be an "also-ran," set to only come in ahead of Thompson. His performance in South Carolina could be even worse. I've got to give Rudy credit: for his own good or ill, he's making presidential electoral history with this strategy of putting all his eggs in the basket of Florida and some of the socially moderate Super Tuesday states.

~ Giulani's strategy has proven the lunacy of early national polls. Just days ago, he was maintaining his status as the Republican "national frontrunner." Now, he's down to third, even though the results so far were all accounted for in his plans.

Please pray, as always, for God's will to be done tomorrow in Michigan.

Article VI of the Constitution

...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, Shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States...
--from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America



During this election cycle, I've heard and seen some people invoke Article VI of the Constitution, as if by doing so they are striking down people like myself with a fatal condemnation. But I would propose that Article VI is just one more reason why we need to elect a Christian President.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's quite simple, really. If we do not elect a Christian President, the Constitution is not going to fix our error. The law will not save us from our mistake. If we choose a non-Christian, we will get our just desserts. The Constitution is designed so that no candidate will be prevented, by a precept of law (literally a "Test"), from attaining political office, presumably after he or she has already been elected by the people. The only test to be given is by the people, when they cast their ballots.

The reality is, the Constitution doesn't begin to decree to the citizenry on what bases we are permitted to embrace or shun a candidate. In fact, it would be a violation of the First Amendment for it to do so. If my faith tells me to cast my vote a certain way, I am allowed to act accordingly.

Consider what the naysayers, claiming constitutional superiority, really are implying when they proclaim that we can't "discriminate" against Romney because of his Mormonism. They are, in effect, saying, "You can vote against Romney because you dislike his ideology, record, wealth, speaking style, hair, fashion, campaign theme song, or the weird feeling you get when you see him, but you can't vote against him because of his religion." That's nonsense! Religion is the foundation upon which all else is built! If nothing else, one's religion installs oneself as god, or the State as god.

In all legality, I could vote against Barack Obama (which I will) merely because of the color of his skin (which, fortunately, happens to not be one of my reasons). That rationale would be despicable, deplorable, disgusting, diabolical, and just about any other negative adjective starting with "d," but that does not make it unlawful. Anyone can freely attempt to take that same tact about the rationality of considering faith in selecting a candidate to support, but no one can honestly make the argument that it is a case of constitutionality.